We already know everyone search results are different from Google, based on our behavior and whether or not we are logged in. Now, Google is ignoring signals from all social networking sites in favor of its own Google Plus.

Most of my family and friends don't like or want Google+. So my search results are skewed by all the marketers who use it?

What issues does this move by Google present to search engine marketers, if any?

No more than anything else, I think. Since the "your world" results can be toggled on and off, I'd think it won't make too big of an impact. But then again, I just finished typing "ostrich - meet sand" so maybe my mindset is affecting everything at the moment.

Although Twitter is trying to encourage the government powers-that-be to step in given the market dominance position of Google, I think it's too complex to expect any action that way. If anything did happen, Google would have moved on to other things at that point.

As usual we'll just have to live with the world as defined by Google. That's the only river to swim in and you've just got to do what it takes.

Google has angered Twitter and faces accusations of "warping" its search results and breaking antitrust rules by boosting posts from its Google+ social network in its standard search results. The changes, which are presently only being implemented in the US via google.com, mean that when people search for information, particularly about individuals, while logged in to Google+, results from the social network will be prominently displayed on the first page of results along with other results from the wider web.

The comment that Danny made in his Google Plus post (about this topic) was something along the lines of "Does anyone still think they shouldn't be on Google Plus? Really?" (paraphrased from memory)

Now, here's a real-life example that relates to that. This morning, while perusing my G+ stream, someone asked if there were any Sharepoint experts around because a client of his needed help. Of course, the big bad "distraction monster" overwhelmed me, and my brain said to myself, "hmm...sharepoint...i forget what that is...let me go see what it is..." Now, there was no good reason for me to go search this, other than distraction just consuming me, but anyway, off I went. I googled [sharepoint]. Below is a screenshot of what I saw in the right sidebar of the results. Now, I ask you, if you were a sharepoint expert, wouldn't you be silly not to be fully making use of Google Plus? (Note that none of those people showed up in the organic results on the left, so if they hadn't been on G+, they'd never have been shown at all.)

It will be interesting to see how Google's force feeding of Plus into the (personalised) SERPs pans out. As can be seen from other social sites there is a huge difference between number of accounts and number of active accounts (with a side order of number of human versus bot accounts ). With most it only matters as a function of advertising rate, with Google it matters also as a matter of entity identification and matching. And that requires ongoing active participation or matching correlation degrades quite quickly.

Yes, it can be prudent marketing to create an account in most, if not all, social sites, however, from studies I've read over 80% of such accounts may sit idle most/all of the time. If that holds true for Plus Google has a problem.

Two other points of associated interest that I'm following are:
* how the SERP-isiation of Plus personal data affects people's sense of privacy.
---and how soon there is an example of the privacy wall failing and someone's private Plus information gets out in full public view.

I often wonder with these things how much is skewed towards online/web professionals. I find that a lot reading blog/marketing posts, they are really writing for people in their own field. If you are working in something related then it all ties in very well. If your the rest of the population it's all a bit irrelevant.

I have done some google searches looking for the "People and Pages on Google+" listings.

They are very abundant if you search for internet marketing terms. However, for most of the searching that I do they are absent. Maybe that is a good reason to get something out there - to have the only presence.

I am a bit surprised that Google is placing the People and Pages box at top right - above right column adsense. They are placing promotion of this feature above current income.

I am a bit surprised that Google is placing the People and Pages box at top right - above right column adsense. They are placing promotion of this feature above current income.

None of which shows if:* you are not signed in (and they do not recognise you as a known entity).---which is most users.* you are signed in but they do not recognise you as a known entity.---which is likely a lot of gmail et al users.And, to be honest, are there many webdevs or other internet savvy users who click on ads?

Yes, it will be interesting to see if (and if so, how much) revenue is affected this quarter; also, what indications arise that the revenue and/or traffic quality dials have been nudged to adjust for revenue shortfall...

After thought:Google is building their social platform from their base which are webdevs and online marketers, quite different from other social sites...I wonder just how strong that foundation will turn out to be and whether it can generate significant interest outside the tech and marketing circle. Without user diversity it will either be a niche social player and/or be trashed as not fulfilling G's need for it.